US v. Kevin Bigelow

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00131-CCB-5. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999939712]. [16-4037]

Appeal: 16-4037

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4037

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN ALBERT BIGELOW,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge.
(1:14-cr-00131-CCB-5)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Dolin, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4037

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin

Albert

Bigelow

pleaded

guilty

to

conspiracy

to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute PCP, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (2016), and possession with
intent to distribute PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(C) (2016).

The district court sentenced Bigelow to 120

months’ imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum.

On appeal,

Bigelow’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he found no meritorious issues
for

appeal

sentence.

but

questioning

the

reasonableness

of

Bigelow’s

Bigelow filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging

the district court’s failure to suppress certain evidence, but he
waived his right to appeal that issue when he pleaded guilty.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case,
and have found no meritorious issues.

At sentencing, the district

court made no significant procedural error.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
the

higher

Sentencing

circumstances

support

While the sentence falls outside

Guidelines
the

district court’s sentence.

See Gall v. United

range,

substantive

the

totality

reasonableness

of

the

of

the

See id.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

This

court requires that counsel inform Bigelow, in writing, of the
right to petition the United States Supreme Court for further
review.

If Bigelow requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
2

Appeal: 16-4037

Doc: 40

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that he served Bigelow with a copy of
the motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3